When we say the usual nonsense about "women can do anything men can do," horrible things happen. Speaking for the vast majority, women are really not cut out to be police officers. We don't make good soldiers, bouncers, or security guards, either. We aren't good at hunting with a knife or a spear, or exploring new and dangerous lands, or performing physical feats in general that are highly taxing on the muscles. We aren't really cut out for any job that requires a lot of strength because we don't have it—not even if we lift lots of weights trying to build ourselvse up. It's not what we are.

So can we at least start from the admission that there are actually a great many jobs men can do that we really cannot?

Now let's switch to the intellectual realm. We can either side with the feminists and maintain that despite the privilege and compassion and adoration men have extended us for all of recorded history, they have been conspiring to hold us down . . . or we can accept that we are not good at inventing, not good at leading tribes, businesses, and nations, not good at discovering new equations, principles, or logical relationships. I offer all of history as evidence.

Having established this, on what grounds will we assert that men and women are "equal"? The only option seems to be to assert that somehow, despite the myriad jobs for which we are not built and intellectual endeavors in which we underperform, we have a huge number of unique abilities that men do not.

Okay, so what are they?

Are we "nurturing"? That's one the lefties like to throw at us. Let's see: Throughout history, a woman has taken care of the man's child . . . and the man has protected and provided for BOTH.

Men CAN sew. Historically, there have been a great many male tailors. Most great chefs are male.

What is it that we are supposedly so great at that they aren't? What is it?

Can you see how, to me, the people insisting we are equal are sounding pretty desperate to make me accept their assertion without reasoning and evidence to support it?

If there is a God, I am in every way inferior to that being. I'm fine with that. It's leftists who just cannot stand the idea of something being superior to them. So they hate God. They lash out in rage at the very idea. My ego can handle the reality of my limitations. Theirs cannot.

Men are superior to women. It doesn't in any way establish logically that we ought to be their slaves. It doesn't make us cattle. It doesn't mean we should be ground up into hamburger patties. I'm seriously concerned about the mental health of anyone who thinks inferiority automatically requires someone to be someone else's slave.

But here's the fact of the matter: Speaking on the average, if you have a real job in the world that needs to be done well, a man will probably do it better than a woman will. This is what we should expect to see statistically. And it is what we DO see statistically. I'm all for meritocracy. If a woman can truly demonstrate she can do the job, and if her doing it doesn't cause some sort of inevitable malfunction in the system (I'm thinking of female soldiers and the devastation they cause to morale), then it makes sense that she should be allowed to do it.

But usually the best man for the job is a man. That's just how it is.

In other countries outside the USA, gender roles are very different. Israeli women all serve in the armed forces.
In WWII, Russian women drove tanks and flew bomber aircraft in combat.
Women served everywhere in WWII Europe as front line soldiers in the ranks of partisans.
That happened in France, Russia, Poland, Yugoslavia, Greece and Italy.

Most of female behavior is strongly influenced by social norms and conditioning.
Now we have female athletes-boxers, wrestlers, baseball and basketball players.

Are we "nurturing"? That's one the lefties like to throw at us. Let's see: Throughout history, a woman has taken care of the man's child . . . and the man has protected and provided for BOTH.

Not quite the same. Despite the modern "metrosexual" man's keen desire to become "Mommy Deux", most men come up short in relating to infants and toddlers. There is a natural bond between a mother and her young child that will NEVER exist between the child and its father, no matter how hard daddy tries. I'll trust the Spartans on this one. Until the age of six, boys as well as girls were raised by their mothers.

Quote:

I'm seriously concerned about the mental health of anyone who thinks inferiority automatically requires someone to be someone else's slave.

Uh oh. Call the men in white coats. "Slave" perhaps is overstating it, but when one people are clearly dominant over another, and they need the services and/or property and goods of another... connect the dots. Negotiations not required.

Quote:

But usually the best man for the job is a man. That's just how it is.

Maybe so, but if my child's kindergarten teacher is "Mr. Jason", and he walks and talks kinda funny, it's not gonna happen.

__________________

"Never argue with an idiot. He'll only drag you down to his level and beat you with experience."

"For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few."

In what way is a domestic cat inferior? Because it's dependent on humans to survive? Because it would lose a head-to-head fight with a lion? That's not its niche. Cats are doing very well. Too well. God knows how many must be euthanized daily because there are too many of them about. If all people were to disappear suddenly, cats and other pets would have to revert to the wild. Many wouldn't make it, but enough probably would survive in their new niches. Would these feral cats also be "inferior"? Are jackals "inferior" because they don't compete directly with lions, but wait to "clean up" their kills? Jackals are also not endangered last I checked.

Using the term "inferior" ONLY makes sense when two subjects are competing for the same environmental niche. Lions and cats don't. Women and men traditionally haven't, only since the imposition of faux "equality". Negroes and other non-whites *are* now in direct competition with us, and would be failing miserably if not for all the special privileges granted them to mask their clear inferiority. Even so, the negro continues to fall behind with very few rare exceptions, mostly those heavily mixed with White.

I'm most fond of the cat analogy used here in the past: a domestic cat is absolutely inferior to a lion or a tiger, yet we love domestic cats and treat them with kindness all the same.

Superiority/inferiority demand specifics. Or, a specified list of general aspects we can value. Cats have no specified lethal-drop height (i.e point of height where they'll decidedly die if they fall). Tigers and lions have those though, because of their more rigid composure and less amble, flexible physiology. In terms of taking down a large animal, they are superior. If the only prey exist was, however, mouses, they'd be inferor, as well as if you threw them off of a plane.

A similar, yet not identical, relationship works between everything else, even human males and females. And no, neither cats-tigers or human males-females are equal within their groups (or between). Evolutionary history has set its marks, very much dependant on specific surroundsings, climates and also chores/works/actions. For humans, there *are* things women are evolutionary more suitable for than men, and vice versa. The way the world has been for most of our existence, the pure existential value of chores have produces a male-specific dominance over most physical labour. When it comes to intellect, dispersed gender'wise, both a daughter and a son inherets genes in, for most parts, the same way, where the expression of their genetic inheritance differs on, to name one, gender-specific level due to the single gene (or gene-pair) that seperates boys from girls. And its a *regulatory* gene-pair, so it matters. It doesn't make women worse at most chores and men better, or vice versa, it just makes them unequally disposed toward chore-specific and surroundings-dependant situations.

One of the problems for women, historically (and today), is whatever they do and regardless of how well they do it, men have generally historically valued a woman's job/chore/work of not only different but of morally lesser value than a man's chore (with the sole exception of actual child birth, mainly because they can't do that specific cultivation-to-deliverence in their bodies themselves). This is, or should be, news to no one.

Location: England, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Posts: 2,342

Re: Ask a White Supremacist Chick

Quote:

Originally Posted by LionAxe

Superiority/inferiority demand specifics. Or, a specified list of general aspects we can value. Cats have no specified lethal-drop height (i.e point of height where they'll decidedly die if they fall). Tigers and lions have those though, because of their more rigid composure and less amble, flexible physiology. In terms of taking down a large animal, they are superior. If the only prey exist was, however, mouses, they'd be inferor, as well as if you threw them off of a plane.

A similar, yet not identical, relationship works between everything else, even human males and females. And no, neither cats-tigers or human males-females are equal within their groups (or between). Evolutionary history has set its marks, very much dependant on specific surroundsings, climates and also chores/works/actions. For humans, there *are* things women are evolutionary more suitable for than men, and vice versa. The way the world has been for most of our existence, the pure existential value of chores have produces a male-specific dominance over most physical labour. When it comes to intellect, dispersed gender'wise, both a daughter and a son inherets genes in, for most parts, the same way, where the expression of their genetic inheritance differs on, to name one, gender-specific level due to the single gene (or gene-pair) that seperates boys from girls. And its a *regulatory* gene-pair, so it matters. It doesn't make women worse at most chores and men better, or vice versa, it just makes them unequally disposed toward chore-specific and surroundings-dependant situations.

One of the problems for women, historically (and today), is whatever they do and regardless of how well they do it, men have generally historically valued a woman's job/chore/work of not only different but of morally lesser value than a man's chore (with the sole exception of actual child birth, mainly because they can't do that specific cultivation-to-deliverence in their bodies themselves). This is, or should be, news to no one.

Well you've certainly forced me into a corner with the cats, so I'll have to acquiesce.

As for women, I have not concerned myself with the debate (I actually skipped over most of the posts debating that specific topic on this thread). I was railing against the idea if you ascribe an inferior status to something you must therefore wish to subject it to slavery, death, things of that nature, etc. as we see when someone suggests there is a race hierarchy with Whites occupying a high position.